It does say "average" which could mean like 50% of Americans would have less wealth and 50% would have more. Especially considering most anglo countries would have less per person. Likely that "middle class" white people would have less, while migrant workers, black people, and indigenous people would have a bit more. Or not, it's hard to think about statistics xD
What I mean is I don't think it's a good idea to go around saying "good news white people socialism means you don't have to change your lifestyle!" Seems like a bit of a cope.
I think if anything, the message should be "socialism means you can do more with less." People won't have the same excesses like buying tons of cheap plastic trash off Amazon for next day delivery, eating steak every other day and off-season fruits year-round, and driving their big car around everywhere. However, there will be universal healthcare, more time off from work, and better public transportation. Your lifestyle changes but it doesn't mean you have to be miserable. It's a trade that has benefits for everyone. And nobody should necessarily be trying to win over chauvinistic people who won't accept any change in their lifestyle. You won't win those people over anyways.
Considering the whole minimalism thing has been pretty popular lately I think a decent chunk of people wouldn’t mind not needing to
C O N S U M E
all the time
Minimalism is built on just in time logistics and being rich.
It's easy to live minimalistically when you know you can buy whatever you need when you need it. It's not a real change to people's living, it's a luxury that rich people can do.
If thats what it was in practice that would be great. But what I've seen is the way minimalism is sold is that one should get rid of all of their stuff that they don't like. Who can do this?
Those who don't need to save, store, reuse, and prepare.
Who is that?
Those who can purchase what they need when they need it.
Yes, but it's possible to imagine a society where, due to overall reduced consumption, there's plenty of resources to go around, and thus it's easy and cheap to get what you need, when you need it.
Saving things for a definite future use is still minimalistic. It stops being minimalistic when it becomes either hoarding or luxury (which in the case of real estate almost always means hoarding).
Some people are minimalistic as a novelty, yes, but others are minimalistic by necessity.
However, there will be universal healthcare, more time off from work, and better public transportation. Your lifestyle changes but it doesn’t mean you have to be miserable. It’s a trade that has benefits for everyone. And nobody should necessarily be trying to win over chauvinistic people who won’t accept any change in their lifestyle. You won’t win those people over anyways.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd give an awful lot just to escape the alienation that the current system generates. That includes shitty workplaces/managers, no sense of community or friend network from people having to constantly move, everyone constantly stressed and encouraged to lash out at others, etc. I think even those "middle class" people who have some financial security are much more miserable than they'd otherwise be just due to this, but it's not something that's as easy to quantify.
It says 10% better of with global redistribution. But that also doesn't account for other changes that would happen when that actually happens. Prices for things would go up as exploitation of the global south decreases, which would easily wipe out that 10% increase in net worth or whatever.
It does say "average" which could mean like 50% of Americans would have less wealth and 50% would have more. Especially considering most anglo countries would have less per person. Likely that "middle class" white people would have less, while migrant workers, black people, and indigenous people would have a bit more. Or not, it's hard to think about statistics xD
What I mean is I don't think it's a good idea to go around saying "good news white people socialism means you don't have to change your lifestyle!" Seems like a bit of a cope.
I think if anything, the message should be "socialism means you can do more with less." People won't have the same excesses like buying tons of cheap plastic trash off Amazon for next day delivery, eating steak every other day and off-season fruits year-round, and driving their big car around everywhere. However, there will be universal healthcare, more time off from work, and better public transportation. Your lifestyle changes but it doesn't mean you have to be miserable. It's a trade that has benefits for everyone. And nobody should necessarily be trying to win over chauvinistic people who won't accept any change in their lifestyle. You won't win those people over anyways.
Considering the whole minimalism thing has been pretty popular lately I think a decent chunk of people wouldn’t mind not needing to C O N S U M E all the time
Minimalism is built on just in time logistics and being rich.
It's easy to live minimalistically when you know you can buy whatever you need when you need it. It's not a real change to people's living, it's a luxury that rich people can do.
Synthesis: It's both good and bad. Although it's also just more silly lifestyle advice like "don't buy too much stuff".
If thats what it was in practice that would be great. But what I've seen is the way minimalism is sold is that one should get rid of all of their stuff that they don't like. Who can do this?
Those who don't need to save, store, reuse, and prepare.
Who is that?
Those who can purchase what they need when they need it.
Yes, but it's possible to imagine a society where, due to overall reduced consumption, there's plenty of resources to go around, and thus it's easy and cheap to get what you need, when you need it.
This is a bit of a hot take.
Saving things for a definite future use is still minimalistic. It stops being minimalistic when it becomes either hoarding or luxury (which in the case of real estate almost always means hoarding).
Some people are minimalistic as a novelty, yes, but others are minimalistic by necessity.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd give an awful lot just to escape the alienation that the current system generates. That includes shitty workplaces/managers, no sense of community or friend network from people having to constantly move, everyone constantly stressed and encouraged to lash out at others, etc. I think even those "middle class" people who have some financial security are much more miserable than they'd otherwise be just due to this, but it's not something that's as easy to quantify.
deleted by creator
It says 10% better of with global redistribution. But that also doesn't account for other changes that would happen when that actually happens. Prices for things would go up as exploitation of the global south decreases, which would easily wipe out that 10% increase in net worth or whatever.
deleted by creator